Report on Proposed Electoral Law Reforms in New Zealand and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

The government of New Zealand has announced proposed reforms to the nation’s electoral laws, citing a need to update what it terms “outdated and unsustainable” legislation. However, these proposals have prompted significant concerns, including a formal warning from the Attorney General that the changes may conflict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and undermine progress toward key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning inclusive institutions and reduced inequalities.

Overview of Proposed Legislative Changes

The government’s proposed electoral overhaul includes several key measures:

1. Closing the voter enrolment period 13 days prior to election day, eliminating the existing practice of same-day and advance voting period registration.
2. Reinstating a complete ban on voting rights for all prisoners.
3. Prohibiting the provision of free food, beverages, or entertainment within a 100-metre radius of polling stations.

Analysis of Potential Impacts on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The proposed legislative changes raise critical questions about New Zealand’s commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The primary areas of concern relate to SDG 10 and SDG 16.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

This goal calls for the development of effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels (Target 16.6) and ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making (Target 16.7).

• Voter Disenfranchisement: The Attorney General’s report to parliament indicates the proposals are “inconsistent” with the right to vote. During the 2023 general election, 97,000 citizens registered for the first time during the voting period. The proposed early deadline for enrolment could disenfranchise a significant number of people, directly contravening the principle of inclusive and participatory institutions.
• Access to Justice and Rights: The blanket ban on prisoner voting is identified by the Attorney General as a measure that disenfranchises citizens with a right to vote and “cannot be justified.” This action challenges the objective of building just institutions that uphold fundamental rights for all individuals.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

This goal aims to empower and promote the social and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, ethnicity, or other status (Target 10.2) and to ensure equal opportunity (Target 10.3).

• Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Communities: The Attorney General’s report explicitly notes that special votes, which would be eliminated by the early enrolment deadline, are more frequently cast by younger people and citizens from Māori, Asian, and Pasifika communities. The proposed changes are therefore likely to have a “greater disenfranchising impact” on these specific demographic groups, exacerbating existing inequalities in political participation.
• Erecting Barriers to Participation: Opposition parties argue the reforms will make it harder for many people to exercise their democratic rights. Instead of fostering inclusion, the government’s plan is viewed as actively “shutting them out,” a direct reversal of the progress sought under SDG 10.

Official Justification and Counterarguments

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon defended the changes by stating that late enrolments have caused significant delays in vote counting and that citizens should be “registered in advance of voting.” The government has acknowledged the Attorney General’s report and stated it will consider the advice provided.

Conversely, the Attorney General, Judith Collins, noted that in the 2023 election, over 200,000 special votes were cast, including nearly 134,000 people who updated their electoral district during the voting period. This data suggests a substantial number of citizens rely on the current system’s flexibility. Opposition justice spokesperson Duncan Webb described the proposal as an “appalling change” that weakens democracy by discouraging, rather than encouraging, voter turnout.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues primarily related to two Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This goal is central to the article, which focuses on proposed changes to New Zealand’s electoral laws. The debate revolves around the inclusivity, fairness, and effectiveness of democratic institutions and processes, the right to vote, and the rule of law. The article details how the government’s plan could affect the integrity of the electoral system and access to democratic participation.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: This goal is relevant because the article explicitly states that the proposed electoral changes would not affect all citizens equally. The attorney general’s report warns that “younger people and areas with larger Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities” would be disproportionately affected, potentially increasing political inequality and disenfranchising specific demographic groups.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, the following specific targets can be identified:

1. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • The article directly addresses this target by discussing measures that could reduce participation in the democratic process. The plan to close voter enrolment early and ban prisoner voting is described by opponents as making it “harder for a lot of people to exercise their democratic right,” which runs counter to the principle of inclusive and participatory decision-making.
2. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, colour, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
   • This target is highlighted by the attorney general’s warning that the changes would have a greater “disenfranchising impact” on “younger people and areas with larger Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities.” This points to a potential reduction in the political inclusion of specific ethnic and age groups.
3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The article touches on this target through the role of the attorney general, who has a “statutory obligation to examine whether legislation will contravene the Bill of Rights.” This process represents a mechanism for institutional accountability and transparency. The debate itself is about whether the proposed changes would make the electoral institution more or less effective and accountable to all citizens.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators:

• Number of people potentially disenfranchised: The article provides specific figures that serve as direct indicators of the impact on voter participation. It states the changes could “disenfranchise more than 100,000 voters.” This is a clear metric for measuring the inclusivity of the electoral process (Target 16.7).
• Number of late/special vote enrolments: The article cites data from the 2023 election: “97,000 people who registered for the first time during the voting period, and nearly 134,000 people who changed electoral districts.” These numbers serve as an indicator of the number of people who rely on same-day or late registration, and thus can be used to measure the impact of its removal (Target 16.7).
• Voter participation rates by demographic group: The article implies this indicator by noting that “Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities” may be more affected. Tracking voter registration and turnout among these specific groups would be a key indicator for measuring progress towards political inclusion (Target 10.2).
• Proportion of the prisoner population eligible to vote: The proposed “total ban on prisoner voting” makes the number or percentage of prisoners who can vote a direct indicator. Reinstating a ban would reduce this number to zero, showing a clear regression on this measure of inclusivity (Target 16.7).
• Consistency of legislation with human rights law: The attorney general’s report finding that the proposal “appears to be inconsistent” with the Bill of Rights serves as a qualitative indicator of whether institutions are upholding fundamental rights and the rule of law (Target 16.6).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theguardian.com